Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline Revision, Question 2 (1998)
The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline Revision Question, also known as Question 2, was a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment on the November 3, 1998 election ballot in Nevada, where it was approved.
|Question 2 (Commission on Judicial Discipline Revision)|
Official results via: Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau - Research Division
Text of measure
The language that appeared on the ballot:
- Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to revise the provisions governing the Commission on Judicial Discipline?
The language that appeared in the voter's guide:
- The Commission on Judicial Discipline was created by constitutional amendment in 1976. The Commission's membership is comprised of two justices or judges appointed by the Nevada Supreme Court, two licensed Nevada attorneys, and three members of the public. Currently, the Commission may only consider matters that are formally brought to its attention by members of the public. The Nevada Supreme Court has sole jurisdiction to adopt rules for the operation of the Commission, including rules governing the confidentiality of proceedings, the grounds of censure and discipline, and the conduct of investigations and hearings. The proposed amendment to the Nevada Constitution redistributes the authority to establish the rules between the Legislature, the Nevada Supreme Court, and the Commission itself. Under the proposal, the Legislature will establish the grounds for judicial discipline that are in addition to violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Legislature also will establish the other forms of discipline that may be imposed in addition to censure, retirement, and removal; the standards for investigations; and the provisions regarding the confidentiality of proceedings before the Commission.
- Under the proposal, the Nevada Supreme Court will adopt a Code of Judicial Conduct and rules governing its handling of appeals of the Commission's decisions. The proposed amendment also requires the Commission to adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its hearings and other activities deemed necessary to carry out its duties. Finally, the proposal would allow the Commission to consider matters relating to the fitness of a justice or judge on its own motion, even if a member of the public did not bring the matter before the Commission.